I love science, but I stopped believing in the religion of Science.

Nateskate · Dec 3, 2009

In so many arguments, I've heard people defend science as the "truth". I love much of what scientific investigation has shown. It's a wonderful tool. However, people seem rather unaware of how political science is because of funding and prejudice.

History has proven that 400 hundred can be wrong and 1 can be right, but those who stand up against the tide can face persecution in their own community, and so there is as much sheep following the sheep as there is in every industry.

It's not just these wonderfully sacrificial people who never ever compromise. It's people who steal and sabotage each other's work. It's people who have to please an agenda to keep their funding. It's people who are afraid of conflicting with the current trend, because they can be easily replaced on the assembly line.

Has anyone else's faith in science been altered by the politics and bullying and the fudging of information to make the round peg fit the square hole?

orangejuice · Dec 3, 2009

I agree with you, though my trust in science hasn't been wholly dented. I think a true scientist is one who seeks to be objective and openminded. However, I think in some academic (and definitely within political) circles, the idea of science as objective and unbiased has been lost a bit. Some so-called 'scientists' seem more intent on pushing their own beliefs/values on others, and to convince people that "I'm right, you're wrong!"
This can happen with everyon though. It ultimately comes down to arrogance.

I have the greatest respect for scientists who use it as a tool to discover and learn about their world, rather than as a platform to make themselves look good or to denounce everyone else as stupid.

veinglory · Dec 4, 2009

A person who thinks science is about "truth" isn't, IMHO, a very good scientist--if they are any kind of scientists at all. Science is about doubt. Science is the idea that you should be willing to immediately change your mind about any and all facts you believe on the basis of new evidence. As such it is the opposite of faith.

Nateskate · Dec 4, 2009

Thanks for your comment orangejuice. I think people have this almost pius idea of scientists. In college, many of my friends were pre-med, and they were brutally competative. It was common for them to destroy competators experiments. My uncle was a lifelong scientist with the government, and it was a cut-throat environment.

So, when people say, "Science proves..." There are so many things that science proved which were later disproved.

orangejuice said:
I agree with you, though my trust in science hasn't been wholly dented. I think a true scientist is one who seeks to be objective and openminded. However, I think in some academic (and definitely within political) circles, the idea of science as objective and unbiased has been lost a bit. Some so-called 'scientists' seem more intent on pushing their own beliefs/values on others, and to convince people that "I'm right, you're wrong!"
This can happen with everyon though. It ultimately comes down to arrogance.

I have the greatest respect for scientists who use it as a tool to discover and learn about their world, rather than as a platform to make themselves look good or to denounce everyone else as stupid.

Nateskate · Dec 4, 2009

veinglory said:
A person who thinks science is about "truth" isn't, IMHO, a very good scientist--if they are any kind of scientists at all. Science is about doubt. Science is the idea that you should be willing to immediately change your mind about any and all facts you believe on the basis of new evidence. As such it is the opposite of faith.

Thanks for your thoughts. Scientists are cut from the same cloth as the rest of us, although particular types might be drawn to science. But they vary between the ruthless and those who are pillars of virtue.

But what people forget is that science is also an industry, where some board is going to decide if a project gets funded. So the industry of science is tainted out of the gate. That's why there are conflicting reports about aspertane and other chemicals. The scientists are prone to fudge in the favor of those that pay the checks.

All humans have a blind side. I wanted to be a scientist from my youth. But the great scientists that I knew all had their blind sides. In fact, perhaps what made them great at science hindered their ability to understand life outside the test tube.

Many of them had to break things apart and if they couldn't, they couldn't accept them.

Here's an example. In relationships, some of my scientist friends tripped over "Why?" You couldn't say, "You're being too wooden...buy her flowers...don't talk about your boring projects..."

They faced relationships/women, like it was something that could be broken down in a test tube. And if they couldn't understand why a woman would want flowers, what's the point, they would shoot themselves in the foot relationally.

So this notion that these are all seekers of the truth, is more that these are people that can't accept what they can't break apart and put back together.

Common sense, instincts, love. In "Ride the Tiger", Jefferson Starship sang, "The tears in the eyes of a western man (rationalizes everything) he'll tell you about salt, carbon, and water...The tears in the eyes of an eastern man, he'll tell you about sadness and sorrow, and the love of a man and a woman."

But that's why you have these shows lampoon science, as in the Big Bang Theory, or the Nutty Professor, or the Professor on Giligans Island. These may be exagerations, but people do know people who are also exactly like these fictional characters. They become obsessed with proving "their point", their life's work. And then if the evidence suggests they were wrong, it's too devestating to face.

veinglory · Dec 4, 2009

Of course human nature is everywhere. Outside of science as much as inside, and so that does not specifically relate to how scientific works compare to non-scientific ones.

The degree to which one has faith in science relative to faith in other things should, I suggest, relate to qualities specific to science?

Manuel Royal · Dec 4, 2009

Science is a process for investigating the world; if somebody thinks it's a set of dogma that they have to "believe in", they don't understand the process.

Cyia · Dec 4, 2009

Theoretical science is very much about believing something that can't be proven.

veinglory · Dec 4, 2009

There are areas of theoretical science that are speculative, at least at this time. But that tends to be outside of or at least marginal to what is considered a main defining quality of scientific knoweldge (use of hypothetico-deductive method, falsifiability).

Shadow_Ferret · Dec 4, 2009

Science is about discovery, investigating, seeking explanations to life's mysteries, looking for the rational behind the irrational.

As far as theories in science, no one is married to them. They are always being examined and if found flawed it is often discarded and replaced.

veinglory · Dec 4, 2009

And there is a culture associated with scientici endeavours. I think it is good to reralise that the human process of science is flawed, as are all the works of man. But there seems to be some kind of rebound scepticism that says science is no better than any other way of "knowing". But by its very nature it does=, when carried out honestly, produce more reliable and effective consensus information.

Shadow_Ferret · Dec 4, 2009

Tends to be more reliable than subscribing anthropomorphic explanations to how nature works.

Drice · Dec 4, 2009

veinglory said:
And there is a culture associated with scientici endeavours. I think it is good to reralise that the human process of science is flawed, as are all the works of man. But there seems to be some kind of rebound scepticism that says science is no better than any other way of "knowing". But by its very nature it does=, when carried out honestly, produce more reliable and effective consensus information.

Perhaps the human process of science is flawed in that humans are flawed but the scientific process is not flawed in that it demands peer review of assertions and this tends to minimize the flawed human aspect of the system. Lots of critical eyes tend to help in that respect. I guess that is what you were saying...

Curious to understand what other ways of knowing there are, though.

I think that "knowing" through belief is fundamentally flawed. For example, knowing that there is a God because there are old stories that talk of some guy being handed stones with a carved message doesn't wash because that "knowledge" is based of pure faith. At this time, God is a concept that cannot be supported scientifically in any serious way.

I suppose that absolutely knowing is never possible, but the more evidence supporting a notion the more that notion can be known or thought of as being true. Always subject to the presentation of new evidence of course.

veinglory · Dec 4, 2009

I think the peer review process is currently one of the most flawed aspects. I do a lot of peer-reviewing for journals and it seems to me that the reviewers employed are often rushed, and not expert in the area or not putting in the time to check everything in paper.

The process between hypothesis formation and testing seems the most robust part of the human endeavor of science, the bits before and after seem most often to go wrong. Just IMHO.

Roger J Carlson · Dec 4, 2009

Drice said:
I think that "knowing" through belief is fundamentally flawed. For example, knowing that there is a God because there are old stories that talk of some guy being handed stones with a carved message doesn't wash because that "knowledge" is based of pure faith. At this time, God is a concept that cannot be supported scientifically in any serious way.

You can't compare "ways of knowing" by assuming first that one is right. That belief cannot be proven scientifically does not prove that scientific knowing is better than belief knowing.

veinglory · Dec 4, 2009

I am with Roger and Stephen Gould on that one. There are different ways of knowing and different purposes to knowing, science is just one segment.

orangejuice · Dec 4, 2009

I like the fact that many aspects of science can be used to show us just how mind bogglingly awesome our universe is, and how tiny we are in comparison to it.
Small things, like the atoms and cells and DNA that make up our bodies and all living things, or huge things, like planets and black holes, all give me a feeling of awe.

If I was a scientist, I'd puruse the career not to show that I was 'right' or to pursue 'truth', though those can both be good endeavours sometimes, but simply to be amazed every day by the world around me.

Drice · Dec 4, 2009

Roger J Carlson said:
You can't compare "ways of knowing" by assuming first that one is right. That belief cannot be proven scientifically does not prove that scientific knowing is better than belief knowing.

I was only applying rational thinking to the concept of faith based knowing and I can't make a case for it. Can you rationally explain "belief knowing" so that I might understand how it works.

I am with Roger and Stephen Gould on that one. There are different ways of knowing and different purposes to knowing, science is just one segment.

veinglory: Can you give a hint as to what knowledge systems Stephen Gould held to which you refer? I am still bound by a need to have some kind of explanation for something beyond "I know it's true because I believe it to be true. Therefore it must be true."

Drice · Dec 4, 2009

orangejuice said:
I like the fact that many aspects of science can be used to show us just how mind bogglingly awesome our universe is, and how tiny we are in comparison to it.
Small things, like the atoms and cells and DNA that make up our bodies and all living things, or huge things, like planets and black holes, all give me a feeling of awe.

If I was a scientist, I'd puruse the career not to show that I was 'right' or to pursue 'truth', though those can both be good endeavours sometimes, but simply to be amazed every day by the world around me.

Interesting. I too am awed by those things and I am not by any means a scientist, but it strikes me that to be a scientist involves a hefty dose of something more than sitting back and being amazed and awestruck. That sounds more like religion. Without the innate scientific need to know how and what is behind this stuff and backing theories with substantiation rather than supernatural fancy is not scientific.

veinglory · Dec 4, 2009

The late Stephen J Gould proposed that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria"

MGraybosch · Dec 4, 2009

Nateskate said:
They faced relationships/women, like it was something that could be broken down in a test tube. And if they couldn't understand why a woman would want flowers, what's the point, they would shoot themselves in the foot relationally.

In other words, they expected relationships to make sense? I keep making that mistake.

Drice · Dec 4, 2009

veinglory said:
The late Stephen J Gould proposed that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria"

Thanks for the post(link). Interesting. I noticed that the only references to "knowledge" were made by popes who attempted to include their "knowledge" in with the "various fields of knowledge" in existence, presumably Biology, Geology etc. It should be noted that the Catholic Church is as well known as any organization for its propensity to rewrite history AKA alter facts or adjust knowledge. It seems to me that his NOMA principal was a cop out. Although he claimed to respect religions he said in dedicating that essay to Carl Sagan that, "Carl also shared my personal suspicion about the nonexistence of souls." Seems to me he may have respected them but did not believe in them nor their claims such as their belief in the existence of souls. I also am of the opinion that Gould did not hold their "knowledge" of such things in high esteem for the very reason that hocus pocus cannot be backed with fact.

Anyways, just my thoughts. I am going to do some more reading on this Gould fellow.

Thanks.

Rhys Cordelle · Dec 5, 2009

Of course they're non overlapping. Science doesn't deal in fantasy. That doesn't add any credibility to religious notions.

It's because of human error that something like the scientific method needed to come. It allows us to come to reasonable conclusions about reality that could be made common knowledge without each and every one of us needing to do thorough and in depth study of every single field of science before accepting it as factual. There aren't enough hours within a human lifetime to learn all there is to learn about the world around us, so we have to rely on other peoples research. At least with science we can have some assurance that current scientific theories are the best answers we currently have for various areas of research.

What is the alternative? Where are you going to get a more credible source?

I'm curious what you're referring to when you speak of scientists with unpopular theories being silenced. Who are these scientists? Are we talking about Intelligent Design here or something else? If their hypothesis can be supported by evidence then it doesn't matter if it's 400 to 1.

Dommo · Dec 5, 2009

I talked a bit about this in a separate topic not that long ago in the Atheism forum.

Basically I broke down "Truth" into this.

1. Provable truth (basically exists only in terms of mathematics or logical constructs).
2. Experimental Truth (Truth that approaches Provable as the number of trials approaches infinity. Essentially using statistics and observation to prove the existence of something)
3. Falsifiability (The ability to demonstrate the falseness of something. This is FAR easier to accomplish then proving something to be true, and is kind of the inverse of rules 1 and 2)
4. Unknowable (Something that can't be falsified, can't be proven through logic/math, and something that can't be experimentally validated)

Science thrives on these principles, and I apply them to every thing I do in my real life.

The whole god question falls into category 4, because as far as I know, no one has managed to falsify the god question(prove it to be false), no one has experimentally validated the existence of a god, and no one has proven mathematically that a god exists. The question is basically unknowable. Hell we can't even agree on what "Defines" the god in question. Is it a Greek type of god? A super intelligent AI? The god of the old testament? The flying spaghetti monster? That's why I put it in the unknowable, and why a lot people have a hard time grasping that(even some scientists), I'll never understand.

Ruv Draba · Dec 5, 2009

Roger J Carlson said:
You can't compare "ways of knowing" by assuming first that one is right. That belief cannot be proven scientifically does not prove that scientific knowing is better than belief knowing.

From a knowledge perspective the biggest problem with belief-knowing is its own history of inconsequential prognostication and outright failure. From an ethical perspective, I have a problem with the authority and influence claimed by people who can't clinically demonstrate any competence.

Science may not always remain the only game in town but I think we're kidding ourselves not to acknowledge that emotional insight is heinously unreliable, and not to recognise the self-interest, ignorance and outright deceit underpinning the bulk of its practice.

I love science, but I stopped believing in the religion of Science.

Nateskate

orangejuice

veinglory

volitare nequeo

Nateskate

Nateskate

veinglory

volitare nequeo

Manuel Royal

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny

veinglory

volitare nequeo

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester

veinglory

volitare nequeo

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester

Drice

veinglory

volitare nequeo

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only

veinglory

volitare nequeo

orangejuice

Drice

Drice

veinglory

volitare nequeo

MGraybosch

Lunch Break Novelist

Drice

Rhys Cordelle

Dommo

On Mac's double secret probation.

Ruv Draba